BoxRec

golden oldie wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Since the mid 1990s the man regarded as the best in the division has always been 240+ pounds. If Frazier could be competitive today why are fighters his size unable to become champion? I think 20+ years of big men dominating is strong evidence that the little guys are no longer able to reach the top.

Not all. That is simply because there are no good smaller fighters. When great smaller heavyweights have fought heavyweights over 240, they almost always won.

That is obviously true unless of course the 240 guy is also a great Heavy, or even a very good one.

golden oldie wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Save your feelings, and try to work out why your life has been so sad that you need to hero worship someone who has been dead 47 years instead.

You poor little guy

You really need to stop gazing in mirrors saddo.

golden oldie wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Which is why you are obviously unaware that Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore were former Light Heavies. No amount of Marciano hero worship changes that FACT.

I feel bad for people who live to troll the internet. Why has life been so hard on you poor little prince?

Save your feelings, and try to work out why your life has been so sad that you need to hero worship someone who has been dead 47 years instead.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Greatness is extremely subjective, isn't it possible that the reason the small heavyweights are less successful is because big men these days are more talented than they were in past eras?

What prior giant heavyweights were as talented as Lennox Lewis?

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Norton's chin is less proven than guys who actually faced the best of their era.
Norton got wrecked when he faced Shavers, he may have been past it at that stage but in his prime he failed to fight the divisions big hitters aside from Foreman who wrecked him.

Your evidence basically comes down to he got "wrecked" against he hardest hitting heavyweight of all time. He had three fights vs Ali, one against Quarry ad one against Holmes and never even got knocked down. They all stopped quality opponents, but not Norton.

Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, Sharkey, Langoford all got wrecked by fighters nowhere near Foreman.

The Norton didn't have good chin line is one of the biggest myths in boxing.

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Save your feelings, and try to work out why your life has been so sad that you need to hero worship someone who has been dead 47 years instead.

Why do you have so much hate for not just Marciano, but anyone who rates him as a great fighter? It's really strange...

Are you for real? When someone applies logic in judging a fighter it has nothing to do with hate.

Lets take 64 - 67 Ali as an example. I am quite happy in the knowledge he would make Marciano look completely stupid with a combination of reach, speed, mobility, and combination punching, forcing the referee to intervene anytime after the 8th round.

I have less than no time for Tyson, yet have no trouble envisioning the bully boy in his element against someone who was flat footed and could only meet fire with fire, and thus getting himself stopped inside 6 minutes.

I won't even bother posting what class fighters like Holmes and Lewis would make Marciano look like, as it is not worth the time.

And George Foreman wouldn't even need the 2nd round to do to Marciano exactly what he did to Joe Frazier.

And it needs more than nostalgic claptrap to convince me these things wouldn't happen, when Marciano's title reign consists of the guys he fought AT THE TIMES HE FOUGHT THEM.

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Are you for real? When someone applies logic in judging a fighter it has nothing to do with hate.

Lets take 64 - 67 Ali as an example. I am quite happy in the knowledge he would make Marciano look completely stupid with a combination of reach, speed, mobility, and combination punching, forcing the referee to intervene anytime after the 8th round.

I have less than no time for Tyson, yet have no trouble envisioning the bully boy in his element against someone who was flat footed and could only meet fire with fire, and thus getting himself stopped inside 6 minutes.

I won't even bother posting what class fighters like Holmes and Lewis would make Marciano look like, as it is not worth the time.

And George Foreman wouldn't even need the 2nd round to do to Marciano exactly what he did to Joe Frazier.

And it needs more than nostalgic claptrap to convince me these things wouldn't happen, when Marciano's title reign consists of the guys he fought AT THE TIMES HE FOUGHT THEM.

So why is it you hate Rocky Marciano and anyone who thinks he's a great fighter?

I always find people who label others " haters " are the ones with the psychological problems, and the cap surely seems to fit you.

You want to be fooled into believing Marciano was the greatest thing since sliced bread, crack on, you might still believe in Father Christmas, just don't expect everyone to be as gullible as you are.

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
I always find people who label others " haters " are the ones with the psychological problems, and the cap surely seems to fit you.

You want to be fooled into believing Marciano was the greatest thing since sliced bread, crack on, you might still believe in Father Christmas, just don't expect everyone to be as gullible as you are.

So you hate Marciano and the people who like his fighting skills because those people are all deluded?

I still don't understand why you hate Rocky? I mean, it's clear from your posts that you do. It's irrational and it makes you look like a buffoon on the forum. You've actually personally insulted people because they think Marciano was a great fighter...is that healthy?

I don't think you can read. It is people like you who label folks racists and haters who have the problem. I don't need to hate Marciano, when I can laugh at gullible idiots who worship the guy.

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
I don't think you can read. It is people like you who label folks racists and haters who have the problem. I don't need to hate Marciano, when I can laugh at gullible idiots who worship the guy.

Who worships him? Why do you want to laugh at people? Is this something you've suffered in real life?

Still too busy laughing at those 3 highlighted words, its a coffee through the nostrils moment.

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Save your feelings, and try to work out why your life has been so sad that you need to hero worship someone who has been dead 47 years instead.

Why do you have so much hate for not just Marciano, but anyone who rates him as a great fighter? It's really strange...

Are you for real? When someone applies logic in judging a fighter it has nothing to do with hate.

Lets take 64 - 67 Ali as an example. I am quite happy in the knowledge he would make Marciano look completely stupid with a combination of reach, speed, mobility, and combination punching, forcing the referee to intervene anytime after the 8th round.

I have less than no time for Tyson, yet have no trouble envisioning the bully boy in his element against someone who was flat footed and could only meet fire with fire, and thus getting himself stopped inside 6 minutes.

I won't even bother posting what class fighters like Holmes and Lewis would make Marciano look like, as it is not worth the time.

And George Foreman wouldn't even need the 2nd round to do to Marciano exactly what he did to Joe Frazier.

And it needs more than nostalgic claptrap to convince me these things wouldn't happen, when Marciano's title reign consists of the guys he fought AT THE TIMES HE FOUGHT THEM.

Tuan_Jim wrote:It's threads like this that caused me to lose interest in boxing forums. Day after day they come, the same autistics with the same complaints. "He only made two successful defences." Yes, that's because his third defence was against Muhammad Ali. Someone might be champion 7 years, 10 years even, and never meet one all-time elite level fighter, never mind three, as Foreman did vs Frazier, Norton and Ali.

'This guy was 200lbs so he can't be good, good heavyweights can only be XXXlbs, X feet high, their records must be X wins and X losses, KO ratio X%' etc etc. . . . There's got be something wrong cognitively with a man who cannot judge a fighter at work and instead needs to look to Boxrec numbers to form his conclusion. Who can be bothered grabbling with such pondlife?

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
I don't think you can read. It is people like you who label folks racists and haters who have the problem. I don't need to hate Marciano, when I can laugh at gullible idiots who worship the guy.

Who worships him? Why do you want to laugh at people? Is this something you've suffered in real life?

Still too busy laughing at those 3 highlighted words, its a coffee through the nostrils moment.

golden oldie wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Still too busy laughing at those 3 highlighted words, its a coffee through the nostrils moment.

So an undefeated heavyweight champion with a record of 49(43)-0-0 doesn't have fighting skills? Oldie, there's an edit feature you can utilize to clear that up.

It just gets better. Why don't you throw in George Chuvalo, or Earnie Shavers, as prime examples of skillful Heavies, seeing as they both KO'd more guys than Marciano.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

You are a joke. skill and Marciano are as likely bed fellows as Jumbo the Elephant, and Ballet Dancing.

golden oldie wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Still too busy laughing at those 3 highlighted words, its a coffee through the nostrils moment.

So an undefeated heavyweight champion with a record of 49(43)-0-0 doesn't have fighting skills? Oldie, there's an edit feature you can utilize to clear that up.

You are a joke. .

Give up wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

So an undefeated heavyweight champion with a record of 49(43)-0-0 doesn't have fighting skills? Oldie, there's an edit feature you can utilize to clear that up.

You are a joke. .

:lol
Marciano for you was a bad fighter and for you Lewis is no2, you are joke :lol

Tony1244 wrote:

Give up wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
You are a joke. .

:lol
Marciano for you was a bad fighter and for you Lewis is no2, you are joke :lol

Lewis being #2 isn't unreasonable IMO, but calling Marciano "bad" or "unskilled" is unreasonable to any rational mind.

Tony1244 wrote:

Give up wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
You are a joke. .

:lol
Marciano for you was a bad fighter and for you Lewis is no2, you are joke :lol

Lewis being #2 isn't unreasonable IMO, but calling Marciano "bad" or "unskilled" is unreasonable to any rational mind.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Greatness is extremely subjective, isn't it possible that the reason the small heavyweights are less successful is because big men these days are more talented than they were in past eras?

What prior giant heavyweights were as talented as Lennox Lewis?

golden oldie wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:It's threads like this that caused me to lose interest in boxing forums. Day after day they come, the same autistics with the same complaints. "He only made two successful defences." Yes, that's because his third defence was against Muhammad Ali. Someone might be champion 7 years, 10 years even, and never meet one all-time elite level fighter, never mind three, as Foreman did vs Frazier, Norton and Ali.

'This guy was 200lbs so he can't be good, good heavyweights can only be XXXlbs, X feet high, their records must be X wins and X losses, KO ratio X%' etc etc. . . . There's got be something wrong cognitively with a man who cannot judge a fighter at work and instead needs to look to Boxrec numbers to form his conclusion. Who can be bothered grabbling with such pondlife?

Agree 100%. Time for me to abort this thread because I always end up feeling bad wasting time arguing or throwing barbs at someone who probably has a pretty terrible life.

Still quacking Daffy?

golden oldie wrote:

Keko wrote:
Marciano had a good career and he was a good boxer but his real skills are not so good and I can understand the criticism. Normally I do not think that he was bad, and certainly had some good skills or the fact that there were others who had better (fw, jab, left h) and the like.

Anyone can trawl the internet and find thousands of threads debating Marciano, as has been the case for years. When singing his praises his more rational defenders use words / phrases like tenacity, strength, stamina, power, desire, will to win, great chin, and great heart. These beg the obvious hypothetical questions as to how he would fare against anyone from Liston to the present day. The guy was / is rarely, if ever, equated with skillfulness.

A few prima donna's on Boxrec are not going to alter that.